选择观察和未观察因素的因果推理方法:倾向得分匹配,Heckit模型和工具变量估计。

Q2 Social Sciences Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation Pub Date : 2019-04-01 DOI:10.7275/7tgr-xt91
P. Scott
{"title":"选择观察和未观察因素的因果推理方法:倾向得分匹配,Heckit模型和工具变量估计。","authors":"P. Scott","doi":"10.7275/7tgr-xt91","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Two approaches to causal inference in the presence of non-random assignment are presented: The Propensity Score approach which pseudo-randomizes by balancing groups on observed propensity to be in treatment, and the Endogenous Treatment Effects approach which utilizes systems of equations to explicitly model selection into treatment. The three methods based on these approaches that are compared in this study are Heckit models, Propensity Score Matching, and Instrumental Variable models. A simulation is presented to demonstrate these models under different specifications of selection observables, selection unobservables, and outcome unobservables in terms of bias in average treatment effect estimates and size of standard errors. Results show that in most cases Heckit models produce the least bias and highest standard errors in average treatment effect estimates. Propensity Score Matching produces the least bias when selection observables are mildly correlated with selection unobservables and outcome unobservables with outcome and selection unobservables being uncorrelated. Instrumental Variable Estimation produces the least bias in two cases: (1) when selection unobservables are correlated with both selection observables and outcome unobservables, while selection observables are unrelated to outcome unobservables; (2) when there are no relations between selection observables, selection unobservables, and outcome unobservables.","PeriodicalId":20361,"journal":{"name":"Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Causal Inference Methods for Selection on Observed and Unobserved Factors: Propensity Score Matching, Heckit Models, and Instrumental Variable Estimation.\",\"authors\":\"P. Scott\",\"doi\":\"10.7275/7tgr-xt91\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Two approaches to causal inference in the presence of non-random assignment are presented: The Propensity Score approach which pseudo-randomizes by balancing groups on observed propensity to be in treatment, and the Endogenous Treatment Effects approach which utilizes systems of equations to explicitly model selection into treatment. The three methods based on these approaches that are compared in this study are Heckit models, Propensity Score Matching, and Instrumental Variable models. A simulation is presented to demonstrate these models under different specifications of selection observables, selection unobservables, and outcome unobservables in terms of bias in average treatment effect estimates and size of standard errors. Results show that in most cases Heckit models produce the least bias and highest standard errors in average treatment effect estimates. Propensity Score Matching produces the least bias when selection observables are mildly correlated with selection unobservables and outcome unobservables with outcome and selection unobservables being uncorrelated. Instrumental Variable Estimation produces the least bias in two cases: (1) when selection unobservables are correlated with both selection observables and outcome unobservables, while selection observables are unrelated to outcome unobservables; (2) when there are no relations between selection observables, selection unobservables, and outcome unobservables.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20361,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7275/7tgr-xt91\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7275/7tgr-xt91","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

在存在非随机分配的情况下,提出了两种因果推理方法:倾向得分方法通过平衡观察到的治疗倾向来进行伪随机化,以及内源性治疗效应方法,该方法利用方程系统明确地为治疗选择建模。本研究比较了基于这些方法的三种方法:Heckit模型、倾向得分匹配模型和工具变量模型。在平均治疗效果估计偏差和标准误差大小方面,提出了一个模拟来证明这些模型在不同规格下的选择可观察性、选择不可观察性和结果不可观察性。结果表明,在大多数情况下,Heckit模型在平均治疗效果估计中产生最小的偏差和最高的标准误差。当选择观察值与选择不可观察值和结果不可观察值轻度相关,结果和选择不可观察值不相关时,倾向评分匹配产生的偏差最小。工具变量估计在两种情况下产生最小的偏差:(1)选择不可观测值与选择不可观测值和结果不可观测值都相关,而选择可观测值与结果不可观测值无关;(2)当选择可观测物、选择不可观测物和结果不可观测物之间没有关系时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Causal Inference Methods for Selection on Observed and Unobserved Factors: Propensity Score Matching, Heckit Models, and Instrumental Variable Estimation.
Two approaches to causal inference in the presence of non-random assignment are presented: The Propensity Score approach which pseudo-randomizes by balancing groups on observed propensity to be in treatment, and the Endogenous Treatment Effects approach which utilizes systems of equations to explicitly model selection into treatment. The three methods based on these approaches that are compared in this study are Heckit models, Propensity Score Matching, and Instrumental Variable models. A simulation is presented to demonstrate these models under different specifications of selection observables, selection unobservables, and outcome unobservables in terms of bias in average treatment effect estimates and size of standard errors. Results show that in most cases Heckit models produce the least bias and highest standard errors in average treatment effect estimates. Propensity Score Matching produces the least bias when selection observables are mildly correlated with selection unobservables and outcome unobservables with outcome and selection unobservables being uncorrelated. Instrumental Variable Estimation produces the least bias in two cases: (1) when selection unobservables are correlated with both selection observables and outcome unobservables, while selection observables are unrelated to outcome unobservables; (2) when there are no relations between selection observables, selection unobservables, and outcome unobservables.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Feedback is a gift: Do Video-enhanced rubrics result in providing better peer feedback than textual rubrics? Do Loss Aversion and the Ownership Effect Bias Content Validation Procedures Flipping the Feedback: Formative Assessment in a Flipped Freshman Circuits Class Eight issues to consider when developing animated videos for the assessment of complex constructs Variability In The Accuracy Of Self-Assessments Among Low, Moderate, And High Performing Students In University Education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1